Common retailers with “no firearms” signs?

[treelogger]

AND the question of whether you could also be charged with carrying without a permit in this situation is a great area and one I’m not willing to be a test case on.

This is the important part. We are currently not sure whether carrying with a CCW in a place that has a "no guns" sign is legal or not. Different people have different opinions, as summarized nicely by Dvrjon above. Matt Cubeiro's opinion carries some weight, as he has studied the law, is licensed to practice it, and has lots of gun law experience. But he's not my attorney. My criminal attorney has also studied the law and is licensed to practice, is a retired DA in one of the largest counties in California, and he says: NEVER EVER TRY THIS. It's just a very bad risk-reward tradeoff. It could easily cost a six digit amount and months to get out of. Even with a CCW, only carry in places where it is crystal clear that it is not illegal. Another example of a gray area he gave: if a parking lot at a strip mall is shared with a restaurant that serves alcohol, don't park there while carrying.

We will sooner or later get plenty of test cases that go to appeal and create precedent-setting interpretation of the law. In the meantime, I'd rather spend my money on guns and ammo than on legal bills, and I don't need the stress of being the next test case.

True story about test cases: A few years ago, I was testifying to a county or state commission about some issue that involved voting rights (details are not important). Let's say the chairman of the committee was a Mr. Smith, and I was arguing in favor or Anytown's volunteer fire department. In my presentation to the committee, I showed them the work my lawyers had done on the question in front of them (and they recognized the name of the law firm, it's one that represents the speaker of the assembly and the governor in their personal affairs, and looks down on the state capitol from its offices in a Sacramento high-rise). And then I asked the chairman: Mr. Smith, do you want the precedent-setting case in California voting rights to be named "Anytown FD v. Smith", just like the esteemed Mr. Wade became famous in abortion rights through "Roe v. Wade"? Is that how you want to leave your mark on history? If yes, go ahead and do XXX. (XXX being the thing I didn't want the commission to do). Hint: We won, and the commission didn't do XXX, mostly because Chairman Smith convinced his fellow commissioners that it was a really bad idea.

 

[Gawernator]

This is the important part. We are currently not sure whether carrying with a CCW in a place that has a "no guns" sign is legal or not. Different people have different opinions, as summarized nicely by Dvrjon above. Matt Cubeiro's opinion carries some weight, as he has studied the law, is licensed to practice it, and has lots of gun law experience. But he's not my attorney. My criminal attorney has also studied the law and is licensed to practice, is a retired DA in one of the largest counties in California, and he says: NEVER EVER TRY THIS. It's just a very bad risk-reward tradeoff. It could easily cost a six digit amount and months to get out of. Even with a CCW, only carry in places where it is crystal clear that it is not illegal. Another example of a gray area he gave: if a parking lot at a strip mall is shared with a restaurant that serves alcohol, don't park there while carrying.

We will sooner or later get plenty of test cases that go to appeal and create precedent-setting interpretation of the law. In the meantime, I'd rather spend my money on guns and ammo than on legal bills, and I don't need the stress of being the next test case.

True story about test cases: A few years ago, I was testifying to a county or state commission about some issue that involved voting rights (details are not important). Let's say the chairman of the committee was a Mr. Smith, and I was arguing in favor or Anytown's volunteer fire department. In my presentation to the committee, I showed them the work my lawyers had done on the question in front of them (and they recognized the name of the law firm, it's one that represents the speaker of the assembly and the governor in their personal affairs, and looks down on the state capitol from its offices in a Sacramento high-rise). And then I asked the chairman: Mr. Smith, do you want the precedent-setting case in California voting rights to be named "Anytown FD v. Smith", just like the esteemed Mr. Wade became famous in abortion rights through "Roe v. Wade"? Is that how you want to leave your mark on history? If yes, go ahead and do XXX. (XXX being the thing I didn't want the commission to do). Hint: We won, and the commission didn't do XXX, mostly because Chairman Smith convinced his fellow commissioners that it was a really bad idea.

Then we get back to the point of why you carry in the first place, avoiding a parking lot is getting into territory where you're just not going to be carrying much and might end up needing it when you don't have it. So better to have the day in court over the parking lot and maybe get saved by a DA or jury down the road, or die?

 

[Wolkenflieger]

According to Matt Cubeiro’s response to my question during his AMA, this is not accurate. His opinion is that you still had a valid CCW at the time, however the IA can revoke it due to your breaking the restrictions. But you cannot be charged with unlawful carry without a permit (although he caveated that it’s possible someone could face such a charge due to an overzealous DA)

The good thing is that a charge is not a conviction.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

The only retailers that is truly "no firearms" are the ones with metal/xray detectors; dog sniffers; active LE.
Everything else are just "wishful thinking from a ."

 

[treelogger]

So better to have the day in court over the parking lot ...

It won't be a day. It will be a year or two. And a 6-digit amount for defense. And probably loss of the job, perhaps permanently. I've seen first hand what just civil cases can do to people. One of my neighbors just won a civil dispute with a judgement of over $1M (which he will never be able to collect on, since you can't get blood from a stone). Half of that settlement is for lost earnings, since being involved in a civil case (which included a restraining order) caused him to be unemployed for a while, and then have to take a much lower-earning job.

The good thing is that a charge is not a conviction.

Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate of over 95%. For state prosecutor, the number is not published easily, but it seems to be over 75%. So yes, a charge is in most cases a conviction (or a plea).

Everything else are just "wishful thinking from a ."

If you don't have arguments, resort to slurs.

Or with a lawyer joke: If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I don't see those signs around here. I see plenty of "service dogs only" signs.

Get Rover to carry for you.

 

[1911-CV]

...
Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate of over 95%. For state prosecutor, the number is not published easily, but it seems to be over 75%. So yes, a charge is in most cases a conviction (or a plea).
...

High conviction rates come from over-charging (charge with attempted murder and 'settle' for assault) and not taking shakey cases like this SSE thing would be. Not sure why you are so determined to dump on standard practice that has existed for years without challenge of any sort. You don't like it, you don't have to do it. Spreading FUD just isn't a productive activity unless you work for the state and that's the best thing you've got to get your way.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

It won't be a day. It will be a year or two. And a 6-digit amount for defense. And probably loss of the job, perhaps permanently. I've seen first hand what just civil cases can do to people. One of my neighbors just won a civil dispute with a judgement of over $1M (which he will never be able to collect on, since you can't get blood from a stone). Half of that settlement is for lost earnings, since being involved in a civil case (which included a restraining order) caused him to be unemployed for a while, and then have to take a much lower-earning job.


Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate of over 95%. For state prosecutor, the number is not published easily, but it seems to be over 75%. So yes, a charge is in most cases a conviction (or a plea).


If you don't have arguments, resort to slurs.

Or with a lawyer joke: If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.

To your point also, having legal trouble is its own punitive cost in time, lost income, and opportunity cost.

 

[treelogger]

I don't work for the state. On the contrary, most people would say that I work against the state (and counties).

We're not talking about SSE, we're talking about carrying with CCW in areas where it is "prohibited", and I put that word in quotes because a retailer putting up a no guns sign, or writing in its membership rules that no firearms are allowed (Costco) is a different meaning of the word than the usual penal code one. The (probably false) information that it is harmless, that all the retailer can do is "trespass you" is going to lead to clueless people going to jail.

Now, I could take the attitude that those clueless people deserved what they had coming. In particular if they are right-wing. Unfortunately, I don't take that attitude, and I'd like to warn them. If they refuse to listen, that's on them.

 

[Glenn B]

Oh interesting, my CCW instructor was fudding them. He told us originally they had to have a sign explicitly saying you were allowed to carry a firearm, but that after the court decision you can carry in any store/publicly accessible business UNLESS they have a sign saying no firearms allowed.

So essentially I’m legally allowed to carry in Whole Foods or other businesses with an “no guns” sign unless someone notices me print and asks me to leave?

You could carry there if they have a sign
Posted. If they catch you they could warn you and tell you to leave. But they could also permanently ban you from being in the store. They have a right to generally refuse service to anyone.

Get a DOJ approved lock box and slip the loaded gun off your body and into the box before you go into the store.

 

[weaverftw]

You could carry there if they have a sign
Posted. If they catch you they could warn you and tell you to leave. But they could also permanently ban you from being in the store. They have a right to generally refuse service to anyone.

Get a DOJ approved lock box and slip the loaded gun off your body and into the box before you go into the store.

This has been addressed in this thread already, but essentially my IA made it a condition of the permit that you not carry in a business that posts such a sign. Whether they can just revoke your permit, or revoke AND charge you with unlicensed carry, is an open question not resolved by precedence.

But your suggestion to slip the loaded gun into a lock box is also not sufficient; by even going into the parking lot I believe you’d have violated the permit conditions already, and then when you left the gun LOADED in the lockbox you’ve committed a separate offense regarding safe storage in a vehicle while unattended (you would’ve had to unload it first).

Crazy that we have to even think about all of this…

 

[Gawernator]

The only retailers that is truly "no firearms" are the ones with metal/xray detectors; dog sniffers; active LE.
Everything else are just "wishful thinking from a ."

Real

 

[Gawernator]

It won't be a day. It will be a year or two. And a 6-digit amount for defense. And probably loss of the job, perhaps permanently. I've seen first hand what just civil cases can do to people. One of my neighbors just won a civil dispute with a judgement of over $1M (which he will never be able to collect on, since you can't get blood from a stone). Half of that settlement is for lost earnings, since being involved in a civil case (which included a restraining order) caused him to be unemployed for a while, and then have to take a much lower-earning job.


Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate of over 95%. For state prosecutor, the number is not published easily, but it seems to be over 75%. So yes, a charge is in most cases a conviction (or a plea).


If you don't have arguments, resort to slurs.

Or with a lawyer joke: If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.

Yeah I’m a criminal defense investigator, I’m probably more aware of how cases work than anyone in this thread unless you’re a defense attorney.
Was that your attempt at being edgy hahahaha - an intelligent man would realize “day in court” is a euphemism for a trial. You actually thought that means the process only lasts one day?

Edit: 6 digits for a misdemeanor charge? Nahhhh dude you are a FUDD for sure haha. Back when I was in the military on active duty I got charged with carrying w/o license, got a cite and release ticket, $4k for a good, well recommended attorney and charge dismissed in the interest of justice, in Alameda County - and that was before defund the police and COVID.

So you’re saying it’s better to die? Luckily with CCWsafe you have $1m+ bail coverage.

 

[1911-CV]

This has been addressed in this thread already, but essentially my IA made it a condition of the permit that you not carry in a business that posts such a sign. Whether they can just revoke your permit, or revoke AND charge you with unlicensed carry, is an open question not resolved by precedence.

But your suggestion to slip the loaded gun into a lock box is also not sufficient; by even going into the parking lot I believe you’d have violated the permit conditions already, and then when you left the gun LOADED in the lockbox you’ve committed a separate offense regarding safe storage in a vehicle while unattended (you would’ve had to unload it first).

Crazy that we have to even think about all of this…

For the state's prohibited places, dedicated parking lots require the gun to be unloaded and in a DOJ approved container.

Shared parking lots have no such requirement.

The IA additional conditions fall outside the SB 2 requirements so it is difficult to see how it would be a chargeable offense. As noted in the AMA with attorney Cubeiro, Link

PC 26200:

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Seems like this clarifies what is legal, though you could lose your CCW if it was issued by one of the few IA's saying you should respect the no gun signs.

I am not a lawyer and definitely not your lawyer.

 

[Gawernator]

For the state's prohibited places, dedicated parking lots require the gun to be unloaded and in a DOJ approved container.

Shared parking lots have no such requirement.

The IA additional conditions fall outside the SB 2 requirements so it is difficult to see how it would be a chargeable offense. As noted in the AMA with attorney Cubeiro, Link

PC 26200:

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Seems like this clarifies what is legal, though you could lose your CCW if it was issued by one of the few IA's saying you should respect the no gun signs.

I am not a lawyer and definitely not your lawyer.

That was something else that came up, and I can confirm the Sac CCW doesn't say anything about the no guns signs places. It does say your license can be revoked, but that's not a criminal charge. I think we answered the question in this edge case

 

[italianzero]

The 'no gun' signs are meaningless in California except for perhaps in the few jurisdictions where the Issuing Agency includes them in their additional conditions for issuance of a CCW. Please cite any code section to the contrary.

They're not meaningless. If you ignore the sign you are a trespasser. If no one knows you are carrying, as is the goal of CCW, it will not have any practical impact on your day. But they are not meaningless.

 

[weaverftw]

They're not meaningless. If you ignore the sign you are a trespasser. If no one knows you are carrying, as is the goal of CCW, it will not have any practical impact on your day. But they are not meaningless.

I’m not sure this is true. I asked in the recent AMA and was advised that they CAN trespass you, but not that you are immediately trespassing (and could be charged) just by carrying there, but that you’d have to refuse to leave after being asked to.

I’ve seen videos however from other states where the LEO automatically charged pale with trespassing just for being at the mall while carrying (they were called due to a fight and brandishing allegation but both parties got trespassing charges just for carrying there when they had signs). Obviously that’s a different state, but I’m not confident I know how that could pan out here.

 

[Gawernator]

They're not meaningless. If you ignore the sign you are a trespasser. If no one knows you are carrying, as is the goal of CCW, it will not have any practical impact on your day. But they are not meaningless.

If the property owner asked you to leave and you refused, then you are trespassing.

 

[italianzero]

I’m not sure this is true. I asked in the recent AMA and was advised that they CAN trespass you, but not that you are immediately trespassing (and could be charged) just by carrying there, but that you’d have to refuse to leave after being asked to.

I’ve seen videos however from other states where the LEO automatically charged pale with trespassing just for being at the mall while carrying (they were called due to a fight and brandishing allegation but both parties got trespassing charges just for carrying there when they had signs). Obviously that’s a different state, but I’m not confident I know how that could pan out here.

Criminal trespass is generally defined as willfully entering or remaining on someone else’s property without their permission or consent. (Cal. PC 602) If the sign says you aren't allowed bc you are carrying, you are entering without their permission. It is a trespass. But like I said, if no one finds out then no, of course nothing will magically happen to you.

 

[italianzero]

If the property owner asked you to leave and you refused, then you are trespassing.

You do not have to be asked to leave, it is sufficient that there is a notice that you are not welcome.